BriefingMay 2015

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research ServiceAuthor: Vivienne HalleuxMembers' Research Service

ENPE 557.024

The EU Strategy for the DanubeRegionSUMMARY

Responding to the objective of achieving territorial cohesion, the macro-regionalapproach promoted by the European Union has gained momentum since 2009 and hasbeen put into practice, first in the Baltic Sea Region and subsequently in the DanubeRiver Basin and the Adriatic-Ionian Region through the implementation of strategiestargeted at each of these areas, the Danube Region Strategy being one such example.

Now that these first macro-regional strategies have been in operation for a few years,efforts have been made to draw initial lessons from them by assessing their results,the added value of the concept, and the suitability of the governance model applied.Reports from the European Commission, while highlighting the strategies' impact interms of projects, coordination and integration, promotion of multi-level governanceand territorial cohesion, underline the need for stronger political backing, commitmentand leadership from the participating countries and regions. Stakeholders have calledfor a more streamlined governance structure, criticised the limited involvement of civilsociety organisations, local and regional actors in planning and decision-makingprocesses, and pointed to capacity shortcomings impeding their participation.

The question of capacities and resources is of critical importance. As macro-regionalstrategies do not bring additional EU funding, the participating countries or regions areexpected to do more with what is available to address the challenges andopportunities requiring their cooperation. Putting this principle into practice is not asmooth process. This is especially true for the Danube macro-region, which is verydiverse in membership. It covers 14 countries whose development levels and status inrelation to the European Union (including their access to EU funding as a result of thelatter) are not the same. The wide disparities between the partners have a significantimpact on the operation of the strategy.

In this briefing: Background The macro-regional concept The EU Strategy for the Danube Region From words to actions: the strategy in

practice First stocktaking Outlook Main references

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 2 of 8

BackgroundThe creation of macro-regional strategies stems from the need to ensure territorialcohesion, i.e. a balanced and sustainable development of the EU's territories, anobjective introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, which placed it on the same footing aseconomic and social cohesion. Since then, the macro-regional approach has gainedsignificant ground.

The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) is one of the three macro-regionalstrategies currently implemented by the EU, along with the EU Strategy for the BalticSea Region (EUSBSR, adopted in 2009) and the EU Strategy for the Adriatic-IonianRegion (EUSAIR, adopted in 2014). Its creation goes back to 2009, when the EU Heads ofState or Government, following a call submitted by Austria and Romania, asked theEuropean Commission to prepare a strategy targeted at the Danube area. The text,accompanied by an action plan, was adopted by the European Commission in December2010 and endorsed by the Council and then European Council in 2011.

The European Parliament (EP), which had been calling for the strategy since 2008,backed the process through the adoption, in January 2010, of a resolution. It stressed, inparticular, the Danube Region's potential for the development of enhanced synergiesbetween different EU policies, and of better coordination between regional and localauthorities and organisations operating in the area. In February 2011, the EP adopted asecond resolution in which it urged quick endorsement of the EUSDR. It also asked to bekept informed and consulted on the status of implementation and updating of thestrategy.

The macro-regional conceptThis type of strategy provides an integratedframework for cooperation, across EU and non-EUborders, in a particular area known as a 'macro-region'. It aims to mobilise new projects andinitiatives with a view to unlocking the potential,improving the integration and strengthening thecohesion of the area covered. Usually defined bygeographical features (in this case a river basin), amacro-region includes territory from a number ofdifferent countries or regions faced with common cross-border challenges andopportunities requiring collective action. The concept thus has both a territorial and afunctional dimension.

The golden rule of the macro-regional approach is to do more with what is available. Itincorporates principles of integration (objectives should be embedded in existing policyframeworks, programmes and funding instruments), coordination (strategies, policiesand funding resources should avoid compartmentalisation between sectoral policies,actors or tiers of government), cooperation (both between countries and sectors),multi-level governance (involvement of different levels of policy-makers) andpartnership (between EU and non-EU countries).

Objectives vary according to the needs of the region concerned, but the focus is put onissues of strategic relevance, where there is real potential for adding value in relation tohorizontal Community policies.

Guiding principlesMacro-regional strategies operate onthe basis of the 'three Nos' rule: No new EU funds; No additional EU structures; No new EU legislation.

The idea is to better align existing fundsand policies at EU, national and regionallevel and to rely on existing bodies forimplementation.

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 3 of 8

The EU Strategy for the Danube RegionTerritorial coverageStretching from the source of theDanube River to its delta, the Danuberegion covers one fifth of the EU’sarea and is home to 115 millionpersons. The strategy brings together14 countries:

nine EU Member States: Germany(Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria),Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia,Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia,Romania and Bulgaria;

three current or potentialcandidates for EU membership:Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,and Montenegro;

two countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy: Moldova andUkraine.

PrioritiesThe common challenges and opportunities linking the Danube macro-region arestructured around four main goals or pillars covering 11 priority areas (see table 1),which were identified after a broad consultation involving relevant Member States,stakeholders and the public. In line with the integrated approach promoted by thestrategy, all priority areas have to be viewed in the context of their links to other policyfields (e.g. environmental protection should be taken into account while trying toimprove navigability).

Governance modelAt policy level, four actors comeinto play (see figure 2): theEuropean Council decides onmain policy orientations; theEuropean Commission acts as afacilitator and guarantor of theEU dimension, coordinates theprocess, reports on achieve-ments and progress made andorganises an annual forumbringing together the partici-pating countries, the EUinstitutions and stakeholders;the High Level Group, made upof official representatives of allEU Member States (non-EUpartners being invited asappropriate), decides forexample on the revision of the

Table 1 - Pillars and priority areas, with leading countries (or regions)

Connecting theregion

Protectingtheenvironment

Buildingprosperity

Strengtheningthe region

Mobility/intermodality- inland waterways(Austria + Romania)- rail, road and air(Slovenia + Serbia)

Water quality(Hungary +Slovakia)

Knowledgesociety(research,education, ICT)(Slovakia +Serbia)

Institutionalcapacity andcooperation(Austria +Slovenia)

More sustainableenergy (CzechRepublic + Hungary)

Environmentalrisks (Hungary+ Romania)

Competitivenessof enterprises(Baden-Württemberg +Croatia)

Security(Bulgaria +Bavaria)

Culture and tourism,people to peoplecontacts (Bulgaria +Romania)

Biodiversity,landscapes,quality of airand soils(Bavaria +Croatia)

People and skills(Austria +Moldova)

Source: EUSDR, 2015.

Figure 1 – Territorial coverage of the Danube region strategy

Source: European Commission, 2011

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 4 of 8

Figure 2 - Governance model

Source: EUSDR, 2012.

action plan or on strategy targets; the National Contact Points provide advice andinformation and coordinate the participation of their country in the implementation ofthe strategy.

At implementation level, each priority area is coordinated by two participatingcountries (or regions) working in consultation with the European Commission, relevantEU agencies and regional bodies. Non-EU countries involved always share theresponsibility with EU Member States. For each priority area, the responsible countriesdesignate Priority Area Coordinators. These high-level officials from national andregional administrations, who are experts in their field, are in charge of the actualimplementation of the action plan in their area (overseeing planning, ensuringcooperation between project promoters, programmes and funding sources) and reportto the European Commission on progress and difficulties. They are supported by aSteering Group consisting of representatives of the Danube region countries, theEuropean Commission and other stakeholders. Project promoters look for partners andfunding opportunities and report on progress and difficulties. Overall, the idea is to relyon existing structures and bodies.

FundingAs the strategy does not come with new EU funding, projects and actions under the11 priority areas have to be financed from existing sources. This implies more efficientuse and a better alignment of funds at European, national and regional level. Much isavailable through the European Structural and Investment Funds,1 but other EUinstruments and programmes can also be mobilised for the strategy, depending on thepolicy area2 and on the countries concerned (for example, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance is available for candidate countries and the EuropeanNeighbourhood and Partnership Instrument for non-EU countries).

Under the Danube Transnational Programme 2014–20, the region will benefit from anEU allocation of around €222 million, with a contribution of around €202 million fromthe European Regional Development Fund and a further €20 million from theInstrument for Pre-Accession Assistance.

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 5 of 8

EUSDR participants are also encouraged to combine grants with loans frominternational financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank. Between2009 and 2013, it lent nearly €49 billion in all 14 countries of the region combined.

From words to actions: the strategy in practiceIn order to deliver the priorities identified for each area, the strategy focuses on'concrete, realistic, coherent and mutually supportive' actions and projects with impactson the macro-region, as laid down in the action plan. They will be updated or replacedonce completed. Regular monitoring is ensured through the implementation reportsestablished on an annual basis for each priority area.

The EUSDR strategy accounts for over 400 projects worth a total of €49 billion, of which150 are already being implemented.3

Connecting the regionKey issues identified: the unused potential of the Danube river for inland navigation, gaps anddeficiencies in road, rail and air infrastructure, especially in cross-border connections, and theneed for enhanced multimodality; in energy, the vulnerability of the region regarding securityof supply, high prices, market fragmentation, poor interconnection of infrastructure, and lackof efficiency; and the competitiveness of the tourism sector, the need for joint promotion andmarketing of the natural and cultural heritage of the region.

Examples of projects: the Danube Shipwreck Removal initiative aimed at improving thenavigation and ecological conditions on the river and its tributaries; the Danube Region GasMarket Model, designed to measure the impact of gas infrastructure projects on gas prices inthe region.

Protecting the environmentKey issues identified: the need to reduce organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution,e.g. by focussing on wastewater treatment; the exposure of the Danube Region Basin to majorfloods, droughts and industrial pollution; the growing pressure on fauna and flora4 due to landuse intensification, urban sprawl, rapid industry and transport development, as well asdredging and hydraulic engineering projects (damming, embankment, rechanneling etc.).

Examples of projects: the SEERISK initiative, aimed at developing and testing a common risk-assessment methodology for the region; the Danube Sturgeon Task Force, created with a viewto save native sturgeon species from extinction.

Building prosperityKey issues identified: the very wide disparities in economic and social terms between theparticipating countries and regions, as pointed out by experts in an extensive study;differences in innovation systems and competitiveness frameworks; uneven performance ineducation and training, and problems of discrimination and poverty.

Examples of projects: the Danube Region Business Forum, providing a networking platform forover 300 SMEs; the Danube Region Research and Innovation Fund, designed to identify,mobilise and distribute funds for the development of research and innovation activities.

Strengthening the regionKey issues identified: the need for improvement in structures and capacity for private andpublic sector decision-making; uneven involvement of civil society; problems caused bycorruption, smuggling of goods, trafficking in human beings.

Examples of projects: the Danube Financing Dialogue, a platform bringing together small andmedium-sized enterprises with international financing institutions and national fundingsources; the Danube River Forum, aimed at establishing a transnational, cross-border andoperative law enforcement cooperation platform for the Danube.

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 6 of 8

First stocktakingInstitutional viewsIn April 2013, the European Commission presented a report on the first phase ofimplementation of the EUSDR, stating the need for adequate financial support andpolitical backing from the participating countries and regions, for sustainableimplementation structures guaranteeing continuity, for an increased focus on results,and for enhanced coherence of the strategy with EU policies and programmes.

In June 2013, the Commission published, at the request of the Council, a reportconcerning the added value of macro-regional strategies, drawing lessons from both theBaltic and Danube experiences. While highlighting the strategies' positive impact interms of projects, networks and joint initiatives, improved policy development,improved value for money, greater coordination and integration, promotion of multi-level governance and territorial cohesion as well as enhanced cooperation withneighbouring countries, the report pointed to the need to improve implementationmethods. Among the key challenges identified were: political commitment, which variesby country, institution, and decision-making level; funding; operational problems in theadministrations concerned, notably due to lack of human resources; and complexity ofstructures.

In its conclusions on the added value of macro-regional strategies, the Council insisted,among other things, on how important it was for the Member States concerned toassume ownership over and responsibility for these strategies, as well as todemonstrate readiness to maintain long-term political commitment and translate it intoadministrative support.

The Committee of the Regions insisted on streamlining the governance structures andsuggested stepping up opportunities for civil society, local, and regional stakeholderparticipation, while insisting on the need for a clear commitment from, and a leadingrole for, high-level political players to advance implementation of the strategies.

The Commission report from May 2014 concerning the governance of macro-regionalstrategies underlined the need for stronger political leadership from the countries andregions concerned; clearer responsibility, including for decision-making; and greaterclarity in the organisation of work, so as to avoid over-dependence on the Commissionat strategic and coordination level. Among other solutions, the report suggested aleading role for the ministries hosting the National Contact Points and for sectoralministries in their relevant thematic areas; a rotating chair; and the nomination of aspecial representative for each strategy. It also recommended strengtheningmanagement at National Contact Point level; increasing civil society participation,including through parliaments and consultative networks or platforms; improvingmechanisms to ensure full involvement of non-EU countries; and making better use ofexisting regional organisations.

StakeholdersIn an opinion paper based on practical experience and empirical research in the Danuberegion, the Danube Civil Society Forum, Foster Europe and the Council of Danube Citiesand Regions argued that there is no clear evidence that the operation of macro-regionalstrategies has contributed to strengthened cohesion and regional economicdevelopment. They regretted the absence of transparent mechanisms to involve civilsociety organisations and local and regional stakeholders in the planning and decision-

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 7 of 8

making processes, stressing that these actors were poorly embedded in the governancestructures. Moreover, they stressed that there was no common procedure regardingthese actors' participation; its organisation depending strongly on the quality andcapacity of the individual public administration systems and the respective Priority AreaCoordinators. They further pointed to lack of staff, funding and expertise impeding theparticipation of civil society organisations and municipalities, especially in the less-developed areas covered by the macro-regional strategies. Civil society and localstakeholder participation, as well as capacity-building efforts, would only be successfulif there is active political support from the Commission and the participating countries,given that they are the main drivers of the policy-making and implementation processesof the macro-regional strategies, according to a 'top-down' coordination mechanism.

OutlookInvolvement as the main challengeSteering structuresDuring the Third Annual Forum of the EUSDR in June 2014, the Ministers of ForeignAffairs of the participating states agreed, in line with the recommendations formulatedin the governance report, to strengthen the strategy's steering structures. Theyconfirmed, among other things, the annually rotating chair and agreed to look into thefunctions and financing of a Danube Strategy Point, which could act as an EUSDRsecretariat.

Local stakeholders' involvementWith the organisation of the First EUSDR Participation Day, civil society and local actorswere for the first time formally involved in the official agenda of the EUSDR AnnualForum 2014. This led to the adoption of the Eisenstadt Declaration, in whichparticipants called for the organisation of regular hearings by National Contact Pointsand Priority Area Coordinators with local communities/municipalities and civil society,and suggested the development of an 'EUSDR Road Map to Democracy andParticipation', to be presented at the Fourth Annual Forum in October 2015.

Resources and participationAs pointed out by experts, one of the main difficulties faced by the Danube RegionStrategy lies in the inability to overcome pre-existing disparities between theparticipating countries and regions, mainly because they have unequal access toresources, different capacities and skills to exploit existing opportunities, and differentpolitical cultures. The financial gap between the participants has an impact on theirinvolvement. Improving the absorption of funds among new Member States andneighbouring countries is therefore a key issue, which is intrinsically linked with theavailability of national co-financing, with the institutional capacities to conceive anddevelop projects, and the skills required to implement them. The European Parliamentdrew attention to this aspect at a very early stage in the drafting of the strategy, when itcalled for a 'coordinated approach aimed at more efficient and higher absorption of allavailable EU funds in the states along the Danube'. The problem is even more acute fornon-EU countries, and represents a significant challenge to their meaningfulparticipation and inclusion in the macro-regional strategy. This has been illustrated, forexample, in a recent socio-economic study, pointing to the lack of involvement of less-developed regions of south-east Europe and especially of Moldova and Ukraine ineconomic cooperation activities.

EPRS The EU Strategy for the Danube Region

Members' Research Service Page 8 of 8

Main referencesEuropean Union Strategy for the Danube Region, COM(2010) 715 final, December 2010.

Action Plan accompanying the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region, SEC(2010) 1489final, December 2010.

Baltic Sea, Danube and macro-regional strategies: a model for transnational cooperation in theEU?, Stefanie Dühr, Notre Europe, 2011.

Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, COM(2013) 181 final,April 2013.

Report concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies,COM(2013) 468 final, June 2013.

Socio‐Economic Assessment of the Danube Region: State of the Region, Challenges and StrategyDevelopment, Centre for European Economic Research GmbH, Mannheim, March 2014.Report concerning the governance of macro-regional strategies, COM(2014) 284 final,May 2014.

New role of macro-regions in European territorial cooperation, study (with annex) prepared byPolicy Department B on Structural and Cohesion Policies at the request of the EuropeanParliament's Committee on Regional Development, January 2015.

Endnotes1 In the 2014‐20 period, about €100 billion is allocated to the Danube Region Member States (excluding

Baden‐Wurttemberg – ERDF and ESF allocations and Bavaria – ERDF and ESF allocations) under EU cohesion policy.2 See, as an example, the possible financing sources for Research and Innovation activities.3 Data from 2013. Source: Report concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies, COM(2013) 468 final.4 Particularly rich in the Danube delta, included since 1991 in the Unesco list of World Heritage sites.

Disclaimer and CopyrightThe content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed thereindo not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to theMembers and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament isgiven prior notice and sent a copy.

© European Union, 2015.

Photo credits: © milangonda / Fotolia.

eprs@ep.europa.euhttp://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet)http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet)http://epthinktank.eu (blog)